Sample test still uses old classifications naming.

To match the description, 'N' should be 'C1', 'M' should be 'D1'.

Tests in Python could use some improvements. They are structured quite poorly, no good distinction into test groups, fixed tests, random tests, etc.

Initial code is invalid: it should be self.secret instead of Hangman.secret, etc. They should not be class variables.

I am curious, are other solutions passing 100% of the time? I got mine to pass on average 98% of the tests (which was close enough to pass all after submitting a couple times), but that certainly wont survive any updates to the kata. Based on the nature of the kata I find it very difficult to imagine a solution that is guaranteed to pass 100% of the time.

Edit: An idea to potentially handle some of the randomness:

• State in the description an acceptable "False positive" and "False negative" percentage value
• Run a batch of a couple hundred (?) tests, randomly choosing between the languages. (To avoid someone writing different functions for each language, and iterating through them)
• Keep track of which tests fail (language and expected outcome)
• If the solution passes with high enough accuracy (for both negative and positive cases) then the solution is accepted, otherwise the results of failed tests are reported back

Of course, just an idea and perhaps your solution can already pass 100%. If you do want highly reliable solutions though I would suggest increasing the number of tests to prevent solutions like mine and computationlan's from passing.

This solution failed at a random test with

old: -6/9+-3=1/8/7/619/168
new: -6+9+-3=1/8/7/619/168

If precise calculations are required, there should be corresponding fixed tests.

imo, you shouldn't do 2 separated tests about the output. Just assert the whole tuple once and for all: ((dx,dy), period).
that makes even clearer what the output is, and that decreases the mount of noise.

Duplicate.

The reference solution is kind of interesting, but impossible to recap, if you don't know the specific library. I think, it should be mentioned in the description...

This kata is very similar to:

https://www.codewars.com/kata/56832fb41676465e82000030

I'm not fond of the way the class is set up for that one. The board, sequence of misses, and number of strikes should be read-only properties, and the guess function simply return true on successful discovery.

This one is concise enough that it could be rewritten as a coroutine. Thoughts or suggestions?

Duplicate.

Why the hell are there sentences like "Sometimes you gwyne to git hurt, en sometimes you gwyne to git sick; but every time you's gwyne to git well agin."?! That's not even correct english.

This kata is a duplicate of:
https://www.codewars.com/kata/55ff2ca7d49961915600000e